woodsters

Bons I'm not making any more work than is already being done. I'm all for working smarter not harder. They already check find histories as has been stated. If there are none in that area, then they don't allow it. It's not more work. Or at least less work if they approve it and then I come along and say it looks like a sock puppet account and suggest it for archive. Should I do that even though the cache is half way decent? It wouldn't be a smart thing to do. I agree also that the best cacher could be the worse hider, and there is nothing you can do about that. So why even worry about vacation caches? Let them run their course, if they become problems, then restrict the people who place them.

well, then Harrald, please don't post in my topic anymore if it bothers you...

Bassoon, this has nothing to do with my family or even back home for all that matters. Back in June/July when the issue was brought up then by someone who had made an error and was trying to fix it, they were harrassed to the point that they said they would never post again. I saw a flaw in the system, I addressed it, to much others disconcern. I used the home thing then as an example as I was going home to visit for a week. It quickly got construed that I was wanting to place a cache or even intended on placing one there, when I said I wasn't. I also stated then that one could easily place one under a fake name with no problems at all. What came out of all that discussion on vacation caches? Well Jeremy stated then that it would be ok to place a cache as long as you had the land manager listed(now has been updated to others) that will maintain the cache for you. It was also mentioned that approvers would use a system of where they would look at your find history and use that in determing an allowance of a cache placement. Basically if you have cached there before, then it would be ok. Which of course is flawed as well because just becuase you were there once, doesn't mean that you will ever go back. I've been to many places all over the U.S. and out, but that doesn't mean that if I place a cache there that I would ever return. Since the discussion back in the summer, I have seen caches listed obviously by sock puppet accounts. So my theory back then does happen and probably has been happening. But the fact remains, whether important to anyone else or not, that the way it works now, that it promotes sock puppets and prohibits honest cachers. It may not be an important issue to anyone else but me. But just as others have their own issues with things here and there, I may not see them as issues. Just as bons mentioned better search functions, I don't have a problem with them, but he is entitled to his issue as am I.

But why the problem of where you place a cache? As long as there are no maintenance problems with it. No one can forsee problems on a cache that someone places, whether they place a mile from their house or a 1000 miles. Bons....well just like an approver now can check a find history (which could be fake as well), then they could check the finds of the placers there as they would be doing already anyway.

I've mentioned it before El Diablo and just recently thought about it again. The forums have gotten real boring lately. Good to see some people come out of the woodwork for this. Hemlock...what is there to be guilty of? Rules? Well then the whole game is guilty because it's full of them! Woof & lulu....ok so why do they not like sock puppets? Or why should one even have to create a sock puppet to do it? I've been around only since June and have seen many...many caches listed online where the placer had no finds....it's out there...trust me. But if I decide that I want to place a cache a couple hundred miles away that I could possibly go back to within a few weeks, but I may have no finds there, I can't place a cache. If I really...really want to place a cache there, I can and will easily under a fake name. Who knows, I may have done this 1 time, 5 times, 10 times or more already. I won't tell. Harrald, why is that when one doesn't agree with every little thing that they are starting a flame thread...actuallu I think your posting is flaming me...and I don't think you have any authority to tell me what to do...

That's not true at all. All you have to do is tell your reviewer that your parents know where the cache is and will maintain it as needed. I see this all the time and approve the caches. Yes hemlock, but I have to do that. But, I might not want my parents to mainatina it. I used that as an example. I have to go the extra mile and hope it is ok. But I can also just make a sock puppet and it will go through with no problem... El Diablo...nope I'm not trying to place one....

Chaos that's fine and dandy. But what happens when you want to do something honestly, but can't. But you know you can do it by cheating? Would you? Probably not from what you said. The topic I brought up has to do with a fact that honest members can not do something. It's known and allowed for you to cheat to do it. Why not try to take measures from letting cheaters ahead and honest people behind. My proposition is to make it where a person has to find a certain amount before they can hide one. It definitely would not hurt the sport any. Also why should approvers even worry about vacation caches at all? It takes time away from other things as someone stated, right? Just let it go and let the cachers police it...

Who cares? I do. I can't go and place a vacation cache under my own name, but I can under a fake name. If it's no big deal, then why worry about vacation caches at all?

Ummm...apparently it is broke. If sock puppet accounts aren't allowed then obviously it's broke, because they are there. If a person who has been caching for some time has to go through red tape or gets denied, but someone who "could" of just started or more than likely a sock puppet can get approved, then it's broken. You are right, sock puppets could place caches every where and be fine. Then again they could go to heck and then go through the process of archiving it or adopting it. So why even worry about them at all? Because if you don't "say" they aren't allowed, then you can not try to stand on a leg when trying to restrict others.

Good question Mopar. But why does an approver approve hides for accounts with no history? My recommendation is require a certain amount of finds before submitting a hide. I guess it could be used as a learning tool as well and may help out on some of the improperly placed caches and the trouble.

Not on the coordinates, no. However, we did seem to, according to Mopar's log, create a very enjoyable and unique cache. Sorry for bringing the topic off course. I mentioned that Wray, because of the usual answers from those that are anti-virtual. Mopar stated it wouldn't be accepted under todays guidelines. I thin hte anti-virts would also say it could be a leg of a multi or something like that.

So planet, you are telling me that there are not any caches approved where the placer has no records of finds? Or how about the fact that accounts are made the same day as caches are placed? It happens all the time. How do you know that I have not done it? I may have! But I won't tell. Not dredging up anything. I've mentioned it before and thought about it again. There's a flaw in the system that affects the honest cachers out there. Is there a fix? Maybe. What if there was a requirement for a certain amount of finds before placing a cache? Heck that might even help on the quality of caches as well. There may be other solutions as well. Then again, you may be able to get around it all. So then why restrict people? Especially those with a good history? All that is happening is the spinning of wheels.

Are there Mopar? I could easily go home to Georgia and log onto the internet at my parents house. I already have an email there through a national internet cable company (Comcast). I could activate the account today and submit a cache today. It would get approved seeing that all other circumstances of caches getting approved were in place. I wouldn't have to have any finds. But on the other hand, I could log into my account and submit a cache. And if I didn't have any finds, then I would have to "convince" the approvers that it would be taken care of and maintained properly. Why would I do that, when I can do it quicker and easier the cheating way?

Wray Clan, but the question is, could a physical cache be hidden there? lmao

Sounds like a kirting of the issue. Yes it has happened before and does happen. This was a quesiton on peoples opinions of it. My opinion would be that since you can't stop this from happening (sock puppet account), then why hold it agains those cachers who are legtitimate and honest about it? Planet, I have gone caching and even if I haven't that wouldn't amount to a hill of beens on this discusssion.

There's been the discussion on the "vacation caches" and about some of the techniques used on allowing them. One that comes to mind is that it has been mentioned that the approvers will look at the caching history of the placer and will take that into consideration. For instance, I live in New England, but I am from Georgia. They would frown upon a little of me placing a cache in Georgia if I didn't have any finds in that area (altohugh I do and this is hypothetical). But since I do, it might be considered more. Although the finds in the area are not the only thing they look at. My question is on those that place caches with no records of finds. Especially those with accounts that are made up the same day a cache is placed. Would that not be a red flag of a sock puppet account or perhaps a "vacation cache" trying to circumvent the guidelines? I've mentioned it before about people could get around by doing that because caches tend to get approved like that. Is it actually fair for someone who is an avid cacher and truthful be turned down because they may want to place a cache which they feel they could maintain but never cached in the area? Or should they just make a sock puppet account and submit it that way with no recorded finds?

You could always do it WaldenRun style.....

Yeah this thread is NOT a good example of mods derailing a thread.....puh lease!

pretty dam.....i mean pretty darn good!

Thousands? I want names and numbers!! Maybe you do speak for the masses but I don't see it that way. I didn't say I speak for anyone else. I said it's much easier to keep a few in a line than it would be to keep thoudands. Thousands referring to the members. Not saying that they all need to be kept in line either. But the amount that do need to be far outweigh the number of mods and that number will grow. But I don't see the number of mods going that high....

UMC it's easier to get 4 or 5 people (mods) on the same sheet of music than it is thousands of people. mtn-man, you are right and as others have stated, there is not really a need for the profanity. But, many people do communicate that way. Some people do not like it. And I agree that it doesn't need to be there along wtih other things.

I don't see it all as a line in the sand. We all know what should not be posted. People go beyond that. I believe they know what is acceptable on that part. But I would like to see more consistency in the moderating part. You can do the same thing on two different days with 2 different moderators seeing it and get 2 different responses. Heck you might not get a response out of 1 of them at all. The moderators all moderate in their own styles and ways. When that happens you get angry people. Not only are they confused why they could do something before, but not now (not ot include seeing a moderator do the same thing). They also point fingers. They start seeing or thiinking that some are getting off easier than others. Make the things more consistent and the punishment more consistent. I've not been warned or have had a problem. But I can see what goes on and of course hear it as well. When I worked for the Feds, we had this chick that started working after me. Maybe a couple months after me. She came in like a lion. Writing everything up, yelling, and being a hard a**. She became a joke. It got to the point that inmates would come up to me and say Mr Wood, that lady is crazy. I knew it, I saw it. My response like every other coworker of hers (even the superiors), was "she's doing her job. We had 1 yr probationary periods. The day before hers was up, they terminated her. They had it planned that way from about 3 or 4 months into her probationary period. She didn't fit in with the smooth running of the institution and was not consistent with us or even with herself. Caused too much ruckus. That goes anywhere. You want a smooth running machine with the least amount of problems. Sometimes you need to step back and take a look at the "jagged edges" and what's causing them and do what you need to do to ensure a medium where both sides can operate and get along with, with maintaining that certain level of respect.

I don't think he was mentioning about typing something and posting it and then immedicately saying, I shouldn't of said that or I didn't mean it that way. I believe we are talking about a time period later. I don't see the reason to post something and then go back remove it completely. You can always later in the post say that you didn't mean that or even add an edit to the post that you want to amend it. But it does ruin a process of someone reading a thread and trying to follow along. When you have all these deleted posts, it amkes no sense.

Why delete it?

Ditto on Sax's last post. It's not about adding rules, but having a consistent way of moderating. There are only 4 or 5 moderators in this area, but yet there are 2 or 3 different ways of moderating. Mulitply those numbers by the thousands for the people using the forums. It's much easier for a few to be consistent than to have thousands stay consistent and within the boundaries.